Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1987, Vol. 52, No. 1,81-90
In the public domain
Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across
Instruments and Observers
Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.
Gerontology Research Center,
National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health
Two data sources—self-reports and peer ratings—and two instruments—adjective factors and questionnaire scales—were used to assess the five-factor model of personality. As in a previous study of
self-reports {McCrae & Costa, 1985b), adjective factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness-antagonism, and conscientiousness-undirectedness were identified in an
analysis of 738 peer ratings of 275 adult subjects. Intraclass correlations among raters, ranging from
.30 to .65, and correlations between mean peer ratings and self-reports, from .25 to .62, showed
substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors. Similar results were seen in analyses
of scales from the NEO Personality Inventory. Items from the adjective factors were used as guides
in a discussion of the nature of the five factors. These data reinforce recent appeals for the adoption
of the five-factor model in personality research and assessment.
Kenrick and Dantchik (1983) complained that "catalogs of
convenience" have replaced meaningful taxonomies of personality traits among "most of the current generation of social/
Perhaps in response to critiques of trait models (Mischel,
1968) and to rebuttals that have called attention to common
inadequacies in personality research (Block, 1977), personologists in recent years have devoted much of their attention to
personality researchers" (p. 299).
This disregard of substance is unfortunate because substance
and method are ultimately interdependent. Unless methodolog-
methodological issues. Lively discussions have centered on the
merits and limitations of ideographic versus nomothetic ap-
ical studies are conducted on well-defined and meaningful traits
their conclusions are dubious; unless the traits are selected from
a comprehensive taxonomy, it is impossible to know how far or
proaches (Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980;Lamiell, 1981), aggregation and its effects on reliability (Epstein, 1979; Rushton,
Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983), and alternative methods of scale
construction (Burisch, 1984; Wrobel & Lachar, 1982). The ve-
in what ways they can be generalized.
Fortunately, a few researchers have been concerned with the
problem of structure and have recognized the need for a con-
ridicality of traits (beyond the realm of cognitive categories) has
been tested by examining the correspondence between traits
sensus on at least the general outlines of a trait taxonomy
(H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1984; Kline & Barrett, 1983; Wiggins, 1979). One particularly promising candidate has emerged.
The five-factor model—comprising extraversion or surgency,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability versus
neuroticism, and culture—of Tupes and Christal (1961) was
and behaviors (Mischel & Peake, 1982; Small, Zeldin, & SavinWilliams, 1983) and between self-reports and ratings (Edwards
& Klockars, 1981; Funder, 1980; McCrae, 1982). As a body,
these studies have simultaneously increased the level of methodological sophistication in personality research and restored confidence in the intelligent use of individual difference models of
personality.
replicated by Norman in 1963 and heralded by him as the basis
for "an adequate taxonomy of personality." Although it was
In contrast, there has been relatively little interest in the sub-
largely neglected for several years, variations on this model have
recently begun to reemerge (Amelang & Borkenau, 1982; Bond,
stance of personality—the systematic description of traits. The
variables chosen as vehicles for tests of methodological hypoth-
Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975; Conley, 1985; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1981, 1982; Hogan, 1983; Lorr
eses often appear arbitrary. Bern and Allen (1974) gave no rationale for the use of conscientiousness and friendliness in their
classic paper on moderators of validity. McGowan and
Gormly's (1976) decision to examine activity and Small et al.'s
& Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985b).
Some researchers (Goldberg, 1982; Peabody, 1984) have
(1983) choice of prosocial and dominance behavior appear to
chiefly been concerned with the representativeness and compre-
have been made to facilitate their research designs. Indeed,
hensiveness of this model with respect to the natural language
of traits; others have sought to provide a theoretical basis for
the taxonomy (Hogan, 1983). Our major concern has been the
convergent and discriminant validity of the dimensions of the
model across instruments and observers. If the five-factor
We wish to thank Petra Netter of the Univeisity of Giessen for her
assistance in translating Amelang and Borkenau (1982), and Lewis R.
Goldberg and Auke Tellegen for many stimulating comments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert R. McCrae, Section on Personality, Stress, and Coping, Gerontology
Research Center, Francis Scott Key Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
model is a reasonable representation of human personality, it
should be recoverable from questionnaires as well as from adjectives and from observer ratings as well as from self-reports.
This line of research addresses substantive questions from the
methodological perspective developed in the past few years.
81
82
ROBERT R. McCRAE AND PAUL T. COSTA, JR.
Five Factors in Self-Reports and Ratings
One of the strongest arguments in favor of the five-factor
model has been its appearance in both self-reports and ratings.
Norman (1963) reported the structure in peer ratings. Goldberg
(1980) showed parallel structures in both ratings and self-reports. As early as the 1960s, convergence across observers was
also demonstrated (Borgatta, 1964; Norman & Goldberg,
1966). However, with a few exceptions (e.g., Norman, 1969),
these studies used only adjective-rating scales, and few attempts
were made to compare adjective factors with standardized questionnaires that are more widely used in personality research.
In a recent publication (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), we examined the correspondence between adjective and questionnaire
formats to see if the same substantive dimensions of personality
would be obtained in each. Our adjective-rating instrument was
an extension of one devised by Goldberg (1983); our questionnaire was the N EO Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1983a), which
measures three broad dimensions identified in analyses of standard personality measures. Self-reports on five adjective factors
were compared with both self-reports and spouse ratings on the
inventory dimensions of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. In brief, the study showed that a version of
the five-factor model could be recovered from the adjectives,
that there were clear correspondences for neuroticism and extraversion dimensions across the two instruments, that Norman's culture factor was better interpreted as openness to experience, and that validity coefficients above .50 could be obtained with both self-reports and spouse ratings.
Three major questions were left unanswered by that study.
As Kammann, Smith, Martin, and McQueen (1984) pointed
out, research using spouses as raters differs in some respects
from more traditional peer-rating studies. Spouses may "more
often disclose their feelings to each other through verbal selfstatements" (p. 117), and spouses may be more willing to adopt
and support the self-concept thus communicated than would
peers. Further, the design of our earlier study allowed comparison only between an observer and a self-report; no comparisons
were possible between different external observers. A first question, then, concerned the generalizability of our findings to
agreement among peer ratings and between peer ratings and
self-reports.
A second question involved the particular five-factor structure observed in our set of 80 adjectives. In most studies the
fifth and smallest factor has been labeled culture and has been
thought to include intelligence, sophistication, and intellectual
curiosity. The latter element, in particular, suggested correspondence with the questionnaire factor of openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985a). In Goldberg's 40-item instrument (1983) the terms curious and creative fell on a factor defined primarily by self-rated intelligence. By adding 40
additional items, including some intended to measure such aspects of openness as preference for variety and imaginativeness,
we tested the hypothesis that the fifth factor might better be
construed as openness rather than as culture. Results confirmed
this expectation by showing a factor with only small loadings
from intelligent and cultured but large loadings from original,
imaginative, and creative, and including other forms of openness (independent, liberal, daring) that were clearly distinct
from intelligence. This factor correlated .57 with the NEO Inventory Openness scale. Because of the conceptual importance
of this reformulation of the Norman model, it was essential to
replicate the adjective-factor structure among peer ratings—the
data source on which Norman (1963) had originally relied.
Finally, the NEO Inventory included no measures of two of
the Norman factors: agreeableness and conscientiousness.
These two dimensions have occurred less frequently in questionnaire measures, and they have been thought by some to represent merely the respondent's evaluation of the target. Consensual validation across observers is therefore particularly important for these two dimensions. For that purpose we developed
questionnaire measures of agreeableness-antagonism and conscientiousness-undirectedness, and we examined agreement
for both dimensions across instruments and observers in the
present study.
Method
Subjects
Individuals who provided self-reports and who were targets for peer
ratings were members of the Augmented Baltimore Longitudinal Study
of Aging. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) sample
is composed of a community-dwelling, generally healthy group of volunteers who have agreed to return for medical and psychological testing
at regular intervals (Shock et al., 1984). The sample has been recruited
continuously since 1958, with most new subjects referred by friends or
relatives already in the study. Among the men, 93% are high school
graduates and 71 % are college graduates; nearly one fourth have doctorate-level degrees. The Augmented BLSA sample consists of 423 men
and 129 women who participate in the BLSA, and it includes 183 wives
and 16 husbands who are not themselves BLSA participants but who
have agreed to complete questionnaires at home. Some participants
chose not to participate in this study, and some provided incomplete
data. Results are based on the 156 men and 118 women for whom complete data were available, except for one subject who scored more than
five standard deviations below the mean on the conscientiousness adjective factor and whose adjective data were thrown out. Comparison of
individuals who chose to participate in the peer-rating study with others
showed no significant differences in age or sex. Somewhat surprisingly,
there were also no differences in self-reported personality as measured
by the five adjective factors. Participating subjects were slightly more
open to experience than were others, F(\, 634) = 4.15, p < .05, when
NEO Inventory scores were examined. At the time of the peer ratings,
ages ranged from 29 to 93 (M = 59.9 years) for men and from 28 to 85
(M =53.8 years) for women.
Peer Raters
Subjects were asked to nominate
three or four individuals who know you very well as you are now.
They can be friends, neighbors, or co-workers, but they should not
be relatives. These should be people who have known you for at
least one year and have seen you in a variety of situations.
A few subjects nominated more than four raters, and names and addresses for 1,075 raters were obtained, a few of whom were dropped
because they were themselves members of the BLSA or had already
been nominated by another subject (peers rated only one subject). Of
those contacted, 747 (69%) provided rating data. Raters were assured
of the confidentiality of their responses and were specifically instructed
not to discuss the ratings with the subject-
83
FIVE FACTORS IN PEER RATINGS
For purposes of item factor analyses, all ratings were pooled. For intraclass and peer/self-report correlations, data were analyzed in four
Table 1
Schedule of Administration of Personality Measures
subsamples denned by the number of ratings available for each subject:
Instrument
49 subjects had exactly one raler, 71 had two raters, 90 had three, and
63 had four or more raters. Too few subjects had five or more raters to
allow analyses of these data, and only the first four raters' data were
examined in these cases.
A background sheet completed by raters was used to characterize the
peers and their relationships to the subjects. As a group, the raters resembled the subjects. They ranged in age from 19 to 87 (M = 54.2
years), and the correlation of rater's age with subject's age was .72. Like
BLSA participants, the raters were well educated: 78% were high school
Self-reports
NEO inventory
Adjective-rating scales, agreeableness
and conscientiousness items
(preliminary)
Peer ratings
Adjective-rating scales
NEO Personality Inventory (Form R)
Date
February 1980
March 1983
July 1983
graduates, 57% were college graduates, and 41% had some graduate or
professional education. Most of the raters (91% of the men and 75% of
the women) were of the same sex as the subjects they rated. However,
when asked if they thought they were similar in "personality, attitudes,
1985b). To examine the factor structure of this instrument in peer rat-
temperament, and feelings" to the subject, only 8% of the raters consid-
ings is one of the aims of this article.
ered themselves very similar, and 51% considered themselves similar;
NEO Personality Inventory. A questionnaire measure of the five-fac-
34% considered themselves different, and 7% considered themselves
tor model is provided by the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985), which comprises the NEO Inventory (Costa & McCrae,
very different from the subject.
The raters appeared to be well acquainted with the subjects. They
1980; McCrae & Costa, 1983a) along with newly developed scales to
reported knowing the subjects for an average of 18.3 years (range = 1
to 74 years). Currently, 57% reported seeing the subject weekly, 27%
measure agreeableness and conscientiousness. The original NEO Inventory is a 144-item questionnaire developed through factor analysis
monthly, and 14% once or twice a year. In addition, 9% of the subjects
to fit a three-dimensional model of personality. Eight-item scales are
volunteered the information that they had seen the subject more frequently at some time in the past. Furthermore, raters appeared to have
used for each of six facets or specific traits within each of three broad
trait dimensions, and overall scores are obtained by summing the scores
some depth of acquaintance: 61% reported that the subject sometimes
of the six facets of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Item scor-
shared confidences or personal feelings with them, and 35% said he or
ing is balanced to control for acquiescence, and socially desirable re-
she often did. In addition, raters said that the subject sometimes (67%)
sponding does not appear to bias scores (McCrae & Costa, 1983b). In-
or often (15%) came to them for advice and support. When asked for
ternal consistency and 6-month retest reliability for the three global
their own assessment, 56% said they knew the subject pretty well, 40%
scores range from .85 to .93 (McCrae & Costa, 1983a). A third-person
said they knew the subject very well.
Most (75%) of the raters described their relationship with the subject
form of the NEO Inventory has been developed for use by raters and
has shown comparable reliability and validity when spouse ratings are
as a close personal friend, 29% as a family friend, 28% as a neighbor,
obtained (McCrae, 1982).
and 34% as a coworker. Only 8% listed themselves as an acquaintance.
Most raters had seen the subjects in a variety of settings: at parties or
Questionnaire scales to measure agreeableness and conscientiousness
were developed as part of the present research. Two 24-itcm rational
social events (89%), with same-sex friends (67%), with family (85%), at
scales were created, and joint factor analysis of these items with NEO
work (51%), during subject's personal crisis (46%), on vacation (39%),
Inventory items led to the identification of the hypothesized five factors.
Ten items loading on the agrccableness and conscientiousness factors
or at religious services (31%).
As a group, these raters seemed particularly well qualified to give per-
were tentatively adopted as measures of those factors. These items also
sonality ratings. They had known the subjects for many years, seen them
frequently in a variety of settings, and shared their confidences. The
correlated more highly with the appropriate adjective factor than with
any of the other adjective factors in self-reports.
raters themselves believed they could give accurate ratings: 86% be-
When the NEO Inventory Rating Form was administered to peers,
lieved they were good at understanding others, and 89% thought the
60 items intended to measure agreeableness and conscientiousness were
subject they rated was straightforward and easy to understand.
interspersed. These included the best items from the pilot study undertaken on self-reports along with new items written subsequently. Two
final 18-item scales measuring agreeableness and conscientiousness2
Measures and Procedure
were derived from analyses of these data. Two criteria were used for item
selection. First, joint factor analysis with the NEO items in peer ratings
Data from two kinds of instruments—adjective-rating scale factors
again showed five factors that could be identified as neuroticism, extra-
and questionnaire scales—were obtained by mail administration over a
period of 4 years. The schedule of administration of the personality
version, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Items selected
for the final scales were required to have their highest loadings on their
measures is given in Table 1.
hypothesized factor. Second, scales were created by using the 10-item
Adjective factors. On the basis of a series of analyses of English-lan-
preliminary scales developed on self-reports. The 60 proposed items
guage trait names, Goldberg (1983) developed a 40-item bipolar1 adjec-
were correlated with these two scales as well as with the three domain
tive-rating scale instrument to measure five major dimensions of personality. In subsequent work (McCrae & Costa, 1985b) we supplemented his list with an additional 40 items. Subjects rated themselves
1
It is sometimes questionable whether the adjectives in bipolar scales
on this 80-item instrument with the use of Goldberg's 9-point scale.
are true psychological opposites. If they are not, one pole may load on
Five factors were derived from these self-reports and identified as neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
one factor, the opposite pole on another. In consequence, the scale may
Similar factors were found for men and women. Neuroticism, extraver-
appear factorially complex.
2
Items, along with normative data, are available as Document No.
sion, and openness factors were validated against NEO Inventory mea-
04440 from ASIS/NAPS, Microfiche Publications, P.O. Box 3513,
sures of the same constructs from both self-reports and spouse ratings,
Grand Central Station, New York, New York 10163. Remit in advance
with convergent correlations ranging from .52 to .65 (McCrae & Costa,
$4 for a microfiche copy or $7.75 for a photocopy.
84
ROBERT R. McCRAE AND PAUL T. COSTA, JR.
scores from the NEO Inventory Rating Form. To be included in the
final selection, items were required to show higher correlations with the
Agreeableness or Conscientiousness scale than with any of the other
four scales. Because the final selection included some items written after
the self-report data had been collected, the final self-report scales consisted of only 10 agreeableness and 14 conscientiousness items.
Coefficient alpha for the Conscientiousness scale was .91 within peer
ratings and .84 within self-reports; for the Agreeableness scale it was .89
within peer ratings but only .56 within self-reports. In part, this low
internal consistency was due to the inclusion of only 10 items in the selfreport scale; in part, it was due to lower average interitem correlations.
Correlations between questionnaire and adjective measures of agreeableness and conscientiousness in self-reports were .48 and .65, respectively; neither scale correlated over .20 with any of the other adjective
factors.
It is essential to note that although the development of the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness scales was conducted in parallel on peers
and self-reports, correlations across these two methods did not influence item selection in any way. Thus, the correlation between self-reports and ratings was not inflated by the capitalization on chance inherent in some types of item selection.
Results
Table 2
Comparabilities for Varimax-Rotated Principal Components
in 738 Peers Using Factor-Scoring Matrices
from Ratings and Self-Reports
Factor comparabilities after varimax rotation
Components
rotated
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Mh
6th
7th
8th
8
7
6
5
4
3
.94
.95
.96
.98
.93
.87
.87
.95
.93
.98
.86
.84
.85
.86
.91
.97
.81
.74
.73
.72
.58
.82
.95
.70
.53
.61
.68
.08
.14
.85
.89
.96
.76
are arranged using the structure observed in self-reports (McCrae & Costa, 1985b) for comparison. The match between factors in the two data sets is clear; the great majority of items
loaded on the same factor in peer ratings as they did in selfreports. The most notable difference appeared to be in the peer
agreeableness-antagonism factor, which included, asdefinersof
the antagonistic pole, aspects of dominance (e.g., dominant,
The results will be considered in three sections. First, we will
bold) from the extraversion factor and hostility (e.g., tempera-
examine the factor structure of the 80-item adjective-rating
mental,jealous) from the neuroticism factor.
The similarity of structure was particularly important in the
case of the openness factor. In peer ratings, as in self-reports,
scales in peer ratings and validate the factors by correlation with
peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Second, we will
consider agreement among peers on the personality characteris-
broad interests, prefer variety, independent, and liberal were
tics of the targets they have rated by examining intraclass correlations among raters for both adjective factor and questionnaire
among the definers of this factor; intelligent and cultured
measures of the five-factor model. Finally, we will present correlations between self-reports and peer ratings.
Adjective Factors in Peer Ratings
showed small loadings. From this set of 80 items in both data
sources, a factor emerged in which concern with rich and varied
experience was more central than cognitive ability.
The interpretation of the peer-rating factors were confirmed
by correlating factor scores with scale scores from the NEO Personality Inventory ratings. Convergent correlations between ad-
Everett (1983) has recently suggested that the number of fac-
jective factors and corresponding NEO scales were .73 for neu-
tors to be retained and interpreted should be determined by
comparing rotated solutions in different samples or subsamples
roticism, .70 for extraversion, .70 for openness, .80 for agreeableness, and .76 for conscientiousness (N = 722, p< .001). The
and adopting the solution that can be replicated. Coefficients of
factor comparability should be used as the measure of similarity, and Everett suggested that coefficients above .90 be required
largest divergent correlation was .33. These findings demonstrate that raters were highly consistent across instruments in
the ways in which they described their targets on each of the five
to consider two factors to be a match. When peer ratings on
dimensions. The findings do not, however, speak to the accuracy
the 80 adjective scales were submitted to principal components
analysis, a scree test suggested that approximately five factors
of the ratings, as judged against external criteria.
would be needed. Everett's procedure was then used to compare
solutions in self-reports and peer ratings for the third through
Consensual Validation Across Peer Raters
eighth factors. Varimax-rotated three-factor solutions were ob-
The extent to which different peers agreed on the attribution
tained independently in self-report data from 503 subjects (Mc-
of traits to the same individual was calculated by examining the
intraclass correlations between factor scores for raters. In-
Crae & Costa, 1985b) and in ratings from 738 peers. Comparability coefficients were calculated by applying the scoring
weights derived from both analyses to the data from peers and
by correlating the resulting factor scores. This process was re-
traclass correlations were equivalent to the Pearsonian correlation between all possible pairs of raters (Haggard, 1958). The
top half of Table 4 gives intraclass correlations for groups of
peated for four-, five-, six-, seven-, and eight-factor solutions (results are shown in Table 2). Only the five-factor solution showed
subjects with two, three, or four raters. All were statistically sig-
replication of all factors, and comparabilities were very high in
.38. Levels of cross-peer agreement were approximately equal
this case, ranging from .95 to .98. This is clear evidence that
the five-factor solution, and only the five-factor solution, was
validation for all five dimensions in three independent subsam-
invariant across observers.
Table 3 shows factor loadings for the five-factor solution in
ples.
Agreement across observers on questionnaire measures is
peers. The factors in Table 3 have been reordered, and variables
seen in significant intraclass correlations given in the bottom
nificant, and values ranged from .30 to .65, with a median of
for all five factors. These data provide evidence of consensual
85
FIVE FACTORS IN PEER RATINGS
Table 3
Varimax- Rotated Factor Loadings for 80 Adjective Items From Peer Ratings
Factor
Factor
Adjectives
Neuroticism (N)
Calm-worrying
At ease-nervous
Relaxed-high-strung
Unemotional-emotional
Even-tempered-temperamental
Secure-insecure
Self-satisfied-self-pitying
Patient-impatient
Not envious-envious/jealous
Comfortable-self-conscious
Not impulse ridden-impulse ridden
Hardy-vulnerable
Objective-subjective
R t
'
{f}
Retiring-sociable
Sober-fun loving
Reserved-affectionate
Aloof-friendly
I nhibited-spontaneous
Quiet-talkative
Passive-active
Loner-joiner
Unfeeling-passionate
Cold-warm
Lonely-not lonely
Task oriented-person oriented
Submissive-dominant
Timid-bold
Openness (O)
Conventional-original
Down to earth-imaginative
Uncreative-creative
Narrow interests-broad interests
Simple-complex
Uncurious-curious
Unad venturous-daring
Prefer routine-prefer variety
Conforming-independent
Unanalytical-analytical
Conservative-liberal
Traditional-untraditional
Unartistic-artistic
E
O
A
C
79
77
66
44
41
63
S3
41
29
57
20
50
17
05
-08
04
40
01
-16
-17
02
01
-30
26
-14
10
-01
-06
01
14
01
-08
-07
-03
-10
-17
22
-13
-31
-20
-21
-34
03
-56
03
-57
-46
-16
-16
23
-20
05
-05
-02
-03
-21
-39
-17
02
-19
-16
-38
-26
-36
-14
-08
-01
71
59
65
08
12
12
08
14
25
08
-15
-15
-16
-21
01
58
52
64
02
49
06
45
01
-19
06
-02
00
-26
-14
14
-05
-49
-04
-16
-21
42
53
43
57
30
36
20
33
28
-08
28
09
-01
09
20
31
-23
14
31
54
10
35
-57
-44
37
12
09
06
11
-29
27
10
-06
16
-08
-15
16
00
-18
-11
-22
-15
04
02
10
12
03
09
20
-13
12
31
30
09
-13
08
-01
15
67
54
56
52
49
41
55
43
49
43
46
45
36
08
-10
11
18
-20
00
-06
14
-14
-13
15
-05
21
-04
-12
25
27
08
24
08
-21
21
30
-13
-36
18
N
-07
Adjectives
Agreeableness vs. antagonism (A)
Irritable-good natured
Ruthless-soft hearted
Rude-courteous
Selfish-selfless
Uncooperative-helpful
Callous-sympathetic
Suspicious-trusting
Stingy-generous
Antagonistic-acquiescent
Critical-lenient
Vengeful-forgiving
Narrow-minded-open-minded
Disagreeable-agreeable
Stubborn-flexible
Serious-cheerful
Cynical-gullible
Manipulative-straightforward
Proud-humble
Conscientiousness vs.
undirectedncss (C)
Negligent-conscientious
Careless— careful
Undependable-reliable
Lazy-hardworking
Disorganized-well organized
Lax-scrupulous
Weak willed-self-disciplined
Sloppy-neat
Late-punctual
Impractial-practical
Thoughtless-deliberate
Aimless-ambitious
Unstable-emotionally stable
Helpless-self-reliant
Playful-businesslike
Unenergetic-energetic
Ignorant-knowledgeable
Quitting-persevering
Stupid-intelligent
Unfair-fair
Imperceptive-perceptive
Uncultured-cultured
E
O
09
-01
09
04
14
11
IS
17
-09
00
07
48
06
12
61
-14
14
-18
34
27
18
-02
23
29
19
24
-06
09
11
15
24
08
-10
14
-15
58
14
06
01
N
17
12
A
C
16
70
11
55
65
44
67
62
55
66
65
70
54
59
61
36
22
45
20
08
^2
-02
-14
16
16
26
00
08
-17
-02
26
40
47
02
16
31
-18
-09
45
13
-01
-08
-07
-07
14
05
-26
-01
02
-07
04
17
-02
03
-01
00
08
-01
05
14
05
03
23
-04
18
11
23
03
-05
10
-03
12
68
72
68
66
68
53
62
59
-05
-24
-03
-09
01
-08
12
09
19
-26
34
-03
13
03
04
07
00
-05
-04
05
21
07
21
02
05
05
14
-08
27
-01
09
-06
13
00
17
59
24
15
60
54
45
52
45
53
49
46
43
62
44
33
39
33
03
-07
01
04
-14
02
-02
-13
-IS
-09
-57
-29
00
-14
-12
-09
-04
-14
16
01
Ty
53
27
41
19
46
36
Note. These are varimax-rotated principal component loadings for 738 raters. The loadings above .40 given in boldface. Decimal points are omitted.
half of Table 4 for three subsamples. These correlations closely
resemble those for adjective factors, and they suggest that peers
agreed as well on questionnaire as on adjective checklist descriptions of their friends.
Although the magnitude of correlations seen in Table 4 compares favorably with most in the literature (see McCrae, 1982,
types account for some or all of the agreement among peers
(Bourne, 1977). A more rigorous test would compare ratings
with self-reports, because it is unlikely that any of the artifacts
affecting either of these sources would be shared (McCrae,
1982). The top half of Table 5 presents the correlations between
averaged peer ratings and self-reports for each of the five factors.
for a review), and although virtually all exceed the .3 barrier
sometimes thought to set a limit to validity coefficients in personality research, it is also true that there was room for considerable difference of opinion between raters with regard to the
With the exception of conscientiousness among subjects having
same subject.
for the NEO Personality Inventory for subjects with complete
data. Although several correlations were small when only a sin-
Agreement Between Self-Reports and Ratings
Agreement among raters was only one piece of evidence for
consensual validation. It could be argued that shared stereo-
only a single rater, all the correlations were statistically significant and many were substantial in magnitude.
The bottom half of Table 5 gives corresponding correlations
gle rater was used, they increased considerably in magnitude
when multiple raters were averaged. Only the Agreeableness
scale failed to show the utility of aggregating raters.
86
ROBERT R. McCRAE AND PAUL T. COSTA, JR.
Table 4
Inlraclass Correlations for Peer Ratings
years. As Table 5 shows, aggregating across raters also tended to
increase agreement. However, as Kammann et al. (1984) noted,
there are limits to the improvements in accuracy offered by ag-
Factor
Number of
peer raters
TV"
N
E
0
gregating. Although the averaged ratings may reflect more accu-
A
C
always diverge to some extent from the individual's phenomenological view of himself or herself. Given the qualifications of
Adjective-factor scores
2
3
4
146
267
248
30
38
30
59
37
42
rately the consensus of how the individual is viewed, they may
65
37
41
43
44
36
37
36
41
the raters in this study, it seems likely that the correlations seen
here will be near the ceiling for self-other agreement.
It is also worth pointing out that ratings and self-reports
differed in another respect as well. When raw scores on the NEO
NEO Personality Inventory
Inventory were compared, ratings were approximately one-half
2
3
4
142
270
252
53
30
31
52
38
43
51
39
40
38
38
28
47
38
40
standard deviation higher on extraversion, and one-third lower
on neuroticism, than were self-reports. Separate norms would
thus be needed to make self-reports and ratings comparable.
Note. N = Neuroticism. E = Extroversion. O = Openness. A = Agreeableness. C = Conscientiousnes. All correlations are significant at p <
.01. Decimal points are omitted.
a
Refers to number of raters.
The Nature of the Five Factors
These methodological considerations lay the groundwork for
the equally important question of substance. A growing body
of research has pointed to the five-factor model as a recurrent
Finally, we considered divergent as well as convergent validation of the five factors across instruments and observers. To sim-
and more or less comprehensive taxonomy of personality traits.
Theorists disagree, however, on precisely how to conceptualize
plify presentation of the data, the four subsamples were com-
the factors themselves. It seems useful at this point to review
bined by calculating an average peer rating (standardized within
subsample) for each adjective-factor and questionnaire scale.
each of the factors and attempt to define the clear elements as
well as disputed aspects. The factors in Table 3, which so closely
Table 6 presents the correlations of mean peer ratings on both
adjective factors and questionnaire scales with self-reports on
parallel factors found in self-reports and which show such clear
the same variables. Convergent correlations, given in boldface,
were invariably larger than divergent correlations, markedly so
for all cases except those involving the self-report questionnaire
Agreeableness-Antagonism scale. Because there was good
agreement across observers when the agreeableness adjective-
evidence of convergent and discriminant validity across observers and instruments, can form a particularly useful guide to the
conceptual content of the dimensions of personality.
Neuroticism versus emotional stability. There is perhaps least
disagreement about neuroticism, defined here by such terms as
worrying, insecure, self-conscious, and temperamental. Al-
factor scores were used, it could be inferred that the problem
here lay with the questionnaire scale and not with the construct.
This was expected given the low reliability of the preliminary
Agreeableness scale used in self-reports. For all five dimensions,
the median validity coefficient was .44. When examined by sex,
convergent correlations ranged from .19 to .58 for men
(median = .35) and from . 17 to .56 for women (median = .48).
Table 5
Convergent Correlations Between Self-Reports and Peer
Ratings for Adjective-Factor Scores and
NEO Personality Inventory
Self-reports
Discussion
Convergence Across Observers and Instruments
This research examined the correspondence between assessments of five major personality dimensions among peer ratings
No. of
peer raters
A"
N
1
2
3
4
49
72
85
61
33*
53***
59***
51***
1
2
3
4
45
68
81
54
O
A
C
41"
42***
55***
59***
25
30**
49***
50***
20
34"
35"
24
21
33"
50***
58***
Adjective-factor scores
and between peer ratings and self-reports, using both adjective
29*
62***
45***
48***
46***
46***
54***
52***
NEO Personality Inventory
factors and questionnaire scales. The results are straightforward, showing convergent and discriminant cross-observer and
cross-instrument validation for all five factors.
The magnitude of the correlations—generally .4 to .6—de-
E
26
47***
43***
51***
37*
60***
46***
56***
53***
53***
62***
67***
serves some comment, because it was larger than typically reported (e.g., Borgatta, 1964). In part, the higher agreement may
be due to reliable and well-constructed measures and, in part,
to the nature of the raters. On the whole, raters were very well
acquainted with the subjects they rated, having seen them frequently in a variety of circumstances over a period of many
Note. N = Neuroticism. E = Extraversion. O = Openness. A = Agreeableness. C = Conscientiousness. Decimal points are omitted.
" Refers to targets, not to raters.
**;><.01.
***p<.001.
87
FIVE FACTORS IN PEER RATINGS
Table 6
Correlations of Self-Reports
With Mean Peer Ratings for Adjective Factors and Questionnaire Scales
Self-reports
Adjective factors
Mean peer rating
NEO Personality Inventory
N
E
O
A
C
N
E
O
50"'
19"
01
-05
-09
00
48***
-01
-14*
-08
02
01
49***
-18**
-12*
05
09
-01
49***
-08
-10
-07
-08
-20***
40***
38***
08
02
-08
-11
06
40*"
11
-26"*
-02
08
16*
43***
-02
-09
NEO Personality Inventory
N
44***
E
06
07
0
A
-06
C
-11
-03
45***
08
-11
-05
00
16**
45***
-15*
-10
-03
00
13*
45***
-09
-15*
06
-07
-10
39***
42***
-04
03
-12
-14*
02
47*"
13*
-25***
-02
02
25*"
57*"
-03
-08
Adjective factors
N
E
0
A
c
A
01
04
-06
28*"
11
-1 1
02
02
30***
08
C
-09
-03
11
-19"
40*"
14*
02
13*
-12
43***
Note. N - Neuroticism. E = Extraversion. O = Openness. A = Agreeableness. C = Conscientiousness. ,V = 255 to 267. Convergent correlations are
shown in boldface. Decimal points are omitted.
*/><.05. "p<.0\.'"p<.00\.
though adjectives describing neuroticism are relatively infre-
friendly, and talkative are the highest loading variables on the
quent in English (Peabody, 1984), psychologists' concerns with
extraversion factor. This is not Jungian extraversion (see Guilford, 1977), but it does correspond to the conception of H. J.
psychopathology have led to the development of innumerable
scales saturated with neuroticism. Indeed, neuroticism is so
ubiquitous an element of personality scales that theorists sometimes take it for granted.
A provocative view of neuroticism is provided by Tellegen (in
press), who views it as negative emotionality, the propensity to
experience a variety of negative affects, such as anxiety, depression, anger, and embarrassment. Virtually all theorists would
concur in the centrality of negative affect to neuroticism; the
question is whether other features also define it. Tellegen himself (in press) pointed out that his construct of negative emo-
Eysenck and most other contemporary researchers, who concur
with popular speech in identifying extraversion with lively sociability.
However, disputes remain about which elements are central
and which are peripheral to extraversion. Most writers would
agree that sociability, cheerfulness, activity level, assertiveness,
and sensation seeking all covary, however loosely. But the Eysencks have at times felt the need to distinguish between sociability
and what they call impulsiveness (S. B. G. Eysenck & Eysenck,
tionality has behavioral and cognitive aspects. Guilford in-
1963; Revelle, Humphreys, Simon, & Gilliland, 1980). Hogan
(1983) believed that the five-factor model was improved by di-
cluded personal relations and objectivity in his emotional
health factor (Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976), sug-
viding extraversion into sociability and assertiveness factors. In
Goldberg's analyses, surgency (dominance and activity) were
gesting that mistrust and self-reference form part of neuroticism. We have found that impulsive behaviors, such as tenden-
the primary definers of extraversion, and terms like warm-cold
were assigned to the agreeableness-antagonism factor. Tellegen
cies to overeat, smoke, or drink excessively, form a facet of neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1980), and impulse-ridden is a
(in press) emphasized the complementary nature of neuroticism and extraversion by labeling his extraversion factor posi-
definer of the neuroticism factor in self-reports, although not
tive emotionality.
in ratings. Others have linked neuroticism to irrational beliefs
These distinctions do seem to merge at a high enough level
of analysis (H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1967; McCrae & Costa,
(Teasdale & Rachman, 1983; Vestre, 1984) or to poor coping
efforts (McCrae & Costa, 1986).
What these behaviors seem to share is a common origin in
1983a), and sociability—the enjoyment of others' company—
seems to be the core. What is essential to recall, however, is that
negative affect. Individuals high in neuroticism have more
liking people does not necessarily make one likable. Salesmen,
difficulty than others in quitting smoking because the distress
those prototypic extraverts, are generally happier to see you
than you are to see them.
caused by abstinence is stronger for them. They may more frequently use inappropriate coping responses like hostile reac-
Openness to experience. The reinterpretation of Norman's
tions and wishful thinking because they must deal more often
with disruptive emotions. They may adopt irrational beliefs like
culture as openness to experience was the focus of some of our
self-blame because these beliefs are cognitively consistent with
lication of results in peer ratings was one of the purposes of the
the negative feelings they experience. Neuroticism appears to
include not only negative affect, but also the disturbed thoughts
and behaviors that accompany emotional distress.
present article. According to adjective-factor results, openness
Extraversion or surgency. Sociable, fun-loving, affectionate,
previous articles (McCrae & Costa, 1985a, I985b), and the rep-
is best characterized by original, imaginative, broad interests,
and daring. In the case of this dimension, however, questionnaires may be better than adjectives as a basis for interpretation
ROBERT R. McCRAE AND PAUL T. COSTA, JR.
and assessment. Many aspects of openness (e.g, openness to
feelings) are not easily expressed in single adjectives, and the
unaware of the Norman taxonomy, found a factor they called
dominance. Among its key definers, however, were Hartnackigkeit (stubbornness) and Erregbarkeit (irritability); scales that
relative poverty of the English-language vocabulary of openness
and closedness may have contributed to confusions about this
domain (McCrae & Costa, 1985a). We know from question-
measure agreeableness and cooperation denned the opposite
pole in their questionnaire factor. Clearly, this factor corre-
naire studies that openness can be manifest in fantasy, aesthet-
sponds to antagonism.
ics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values (Costa & McCrae, 1978,
1980), but only ideas and values are well represented in the ad-
1985b), submissive-dominant is a weak definer of extraversion;
in Table 3, from the peers' point of view, it is a definer of antago-
jective factor. Interestingly, questionnaire measures of openness
give higher validity coefficients than do adjective-factor measures—indeed, the correlation of .57 between the self-reported
nism. The close etymological relationship of dominant and
NEO Openness scale and the peer-rated NEO Openness scale
is the highest of those shown in Table 6.
edness are sometimes omitted from personality systems be-
Perhaps the most important distinction to be made here is
character is made largely along these two dimensions: Is the in-
between openness and intelligence. Open individuals tend to be
seen by themselves and others as somewhat more intelligent,
and there are correlations of .30 between psychometric mea-
dividual well or ill intentioned? Is he or she strong or weak in
sures of intelligence and openness. However, joint factor analyses using Army Alpha intelligence subtests and either adjectives
others' perceptions rather than a veridical component of per-
(McCrae & Costa, 1985b) or NEO Inventory scales (McCrae &
Costa, 1985a) show that intelligence scales define a factor
clearly separate from openness. Intelligence may in some degree
predispose the individual to openness, or openness may help
develop intelligence, but the two seem best construed as separate dimensions of individual differences.
Agreeableness versus antagonism. As a broad dimension,
agreeableness-antagonism is less familiar than extraversion or
neuroticism, but some of its component traits, like trust (Stark,
In self-reports (McCrae & Costa,
domineering shows the basis of the confusion.
Agreeableness-antagonism and conscientiousness-undirectcause they may seem too value laden. Indeed, the judgment of
carrying out those intentions? Agreeableness-antagonism, in
particular, has often been assumed to be an evaluative factor of
sonality (e.g., A. Tellegen, personal communication, March 28,
1984).
However, the fact that a trait may be judged from a moral
point of view does not mean that it is not a substantive aspect
of personality. The consensual validation seen among peers and
between peer-reports and self-reports demonstrates that there
are some observable consistencies of behavior that underlie attributions of agreeableness and conscientiousness. They may be
evaluated traits, but they are not mere evaluations.
Conscientiousness versus undirecledness. Conscientious may
1978) and Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970), have been
widely researched. The essential nature of agreeableness-antagonism is perhaps best seen by examining the disagreeable pole,
which we have labeled antagonism. As the high-loading adjec-
mean either governed by conscience or careful and thorough
(Morris, 1976), and psychologists seem to be divided about
which of these meanings best characterizes the last major dimension of personality. Amelang and Borkenau (1982) labeled
tives in Table 3 and the items in Table 2 show, antagonistic people seem always to set themselves against others. Cognitively
their factor self-control versus impulsivity, and Conley (1985)
they are mistrustful and skeptical; affectively they are callous
and unsympathetic; behaviorally they are uncooperative, stubborn, and rude. It would appear that their sense of attachment
or bonding with their fellow human beings is defective, and in
extreme cases antagonism may resemble sociopathy (cf. H. J.
Eysenck & Eysenck's, 1975, psychoticism).
An insightful description of antagonism in its neurotic form
spoke of impulse control. This terminology connotes an inhibiting agent, as Cattell (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) recognized when he named his Factor G superego strength. A conscientious person in this sense should be dutiful, scrupulous, and
perhaps moralistic.
A different picture, however, is obtained by examining the
adjectives that define this factor. In addition to conscientious
is provided by Horney's account of the tendency to move
and scrupulous, there are a number of adjectives that suggest a
more proactive stance: hardworking, ambitious, energetic, per-
against people (1945, 1950). She theorized that a struggle for
severing. Digman and Takemoto-Chock (1981) labeled this fac-
mastery is the root cause of this tendency and that variations
may occur, including narcissistic, perfectionistic, and arrogant
tor will to achieve, and it is notable that one of the items in
the questionnaire measure of conscientiousness, "He strives for
excellence in all he does," comes close to the classic definition of
vindictive types. Whereas some antagonistic persons are overtly
aggressive, others may be polished manipulators. The drive for
mastery and the overt or inhibited hostility of antagonistic indi-
need for achievement (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,
viduals suggests a resemblance to some formulations of Type A
At one time, the purposefulness and adherence to plans,
schedules, and requirements suggested the word direction as a
personality (Dembroski & MacDougall, 1983), and systematic
studies of the relations between agreeableness-antagonism and
measures of coronary-prone behavior should be undertaken.
Unappealing as antagonism may be, it is necessary to recog-
1953).
label for this factor, and we have retained that implication in
calling the opposite pole of conscientiousness undirecledness.
In our view, the individual low in conscientiousness is not so
nize that extreme scores on the agreeable pole may also be mal-
much uncontrolled as undirected, not so much impulse ridden
adaptive. The person high in agreeableness may be dependent
and fawning, and agreeableness has its neurotic manifestation
as simply lazy.
It seems probable that these two meanings may be related.
in Horney's self-effacing solution of moving toward people.
Antagonism is most easily confused with dominance. Amel-
Certainly individuals who are well organized, habitually care-
ang and Borkenau (1982), working in German and apparently
adhere scrupulously to a moral code if they choose to—al-
ful, and capable of self-discipline are more likely to be able to
89
FIVE FACTORS IN PEER RATINGS
though there is no guarantee that they will be so inclined. An
undirected individual may have a demanding conscience and a
pervasive sense of guilt but be unable to live up to his or her
own standards for lack of self-discipline and energy. In any case,
it is clear that this is a dimension worthy of a good deal more
empirical attention than it has yet received. Important real-life
outcomes such as alcoholism (Conley & Angelides, 1984) and
academic achievement (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981) are
among its correlates, and a further specification of the dimension is sure to be fruitful.
Some personality theorists might object that trait ratings, in
whatever form and from whatever source, need not provide the
best foundation for understanding individual differences. Experimental analysis of the psychophysiological basis of personality (H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1984), examination ofprototypic acts and act frequencies (Buss & Craik, 1983), psychodynamic formulations (Homey, 1945), or behavioral genetics
(Plomin, DeFries, & McClearn, 1980) provide important alternatives. But psychophysiological, behavioral, psychodynamic,
and genetic explanations must eventually be related to the traits
that are universally used to describe personality, and the fivefactor model can provide a framework within which these relations can be systematically examined. The minor conceptual
divergences noted in this article suggest the need for additional
empirical work to fine-tune the model, but the broad outlines
are clear in self-reports, spouse ratings, and peer ratings; in
questionnaires and adjective factors; and in English and in German (Amelang & Borkenau, 1982; John, Goldberg, & Angleitner, 1984). Deeper causal analyses may seek to account for
the structure of personality, but the structure that must be explained is, for now, best represented by the five-factor model.
Christie, R., & Geis, R. L. (Eds.). (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism.
References
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1967). On the unitary nature of
New York: Academic Press.
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 1266-1282.
Conley, J. J., & Angelides, M. (1984). Personality antecedents of emotional disorders and alcohol abuse in men: Results of a forty-five year
prospective study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1978). Objective personality assessment. In M. Storandt, I. C. Sieglcr, & M. F. Elias (Eds.), The clinical
psychology of aging (pp. 119-143). New York: Plenum Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years:
Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B.
Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life span development and behavior
(Vol. 3, pp. 65-102). New York: Academic Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dembroski, T. M., &MacDougall, J. M. (1983). Behavioral and psychophysiological perspectives on coronary-prone behavior. In T. M.
Dembroski, T. H. Schmidt, & G. Blumchen (Eds.), liiobehavioral
bases of coronary heart disease (pp. 106-129). New York: Karger.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural
language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation
of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170.
Edwards, A. L., & Klockars, A. J. (1981). Significant others and selfevaluation: Relationships between perceived and actual evaluations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 244-251.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting mosl of
the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3T, 1097-1126.
Everett, J. E. (1983). Factor comparability as a means of determining
the number of factors and their rotation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18. 197-218.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. (1984). Personality and individual
differences.
Amelang, M, & Borkenau, P. (1982). Uberdie faktorielle Struktur und
externe Validitat einiger Fragebogen-Skalen zur Erfassung von Diraensionen der Extroversion und emotionalen Labilitat [On the factor
structure and external validity of some questionnaire scales measuring dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism]. Zeitschrift
Differentiette
far
und Diagnostische Psychologic, 3, 119-146.
Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some
of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior.
Psychological Review, SI, 88-104.
Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic
shift or improving the quality of research? In D. Magnusson & N. S.
Endler (Eds.), Personality at the cross-roads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bond, M. H., Nakazato, H., & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality and
distinctiveness in dimensions of Japanese person perception. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 346-357.
Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9, 8-17.
Bourne, E. (1977). Can we describe an individual's personality? Agreement on stereotype versus individual attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35. 863-872.
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction:
A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214-227.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to
personality. Psychological Review, 90. 105-126.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). The handbook
for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
London: Plenum Press.
extraversion. Acta Psychologica. 26, 383-390.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: EdITS.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1963). On the dual nature of extraversion. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2. 46-55.
Funder, D. C. (1980). On seeing ourselves as others see us: Self-other
agreement and discrepancy in personality ratings. Journal of Personality, 48, 473-493.
Goldberg, L. R. (1980, May). Some ruminations about the structure of
individual differences:
Developing a common lexicon for the major
characteristics of human personality Paper presented at the meeting
of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The
search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the
language of personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.),
Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203-234). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldberg, L. R. (1983, June). The magical number five, plus or minus
two: Some considerations on the dimensionality of personality descriptors. Paper presented at a Research Seminar, Gerontology Research Center, NIA/NIH, Baltimore, MD.
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Will the real factor of extraversion-introversion
please stand up? A reply to Eysenck. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 412-
416.
Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford. J. P. (1976). The Guil-
90
ROBERT R. McCRAE AND PAUL T. COSTA, JR.
ford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey handbook: Twenty-five
yean of research and application. San Diego, CA: EdITS.
Haggard, E. A. (1958). Intraclass correlation and the analysis of variance. New York: Dryden Press.
Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page
(Ed.), 1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Personality—current theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton.
Homey, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.
John, O. P., Goldberg, L. R., & Angleitner, A. (1984). Better than the
alphabet: Taxonomies of personality-descriptive terms in English,
Dutch, and German. In H. J. C. Bonarius, G. L. M. van Heck, &
N. G. Smid (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and
empirical developments. Lisse, Switzerland: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kammann, R., Smith, R., Martin, C., & McQueen, M. (1984). Low
accuracy in judgments of others' psychological well-being as seen
from a phenomenological perspective. Journal of Personality, 52,
107-123.
Kenrick, D. T, & Dantchik, A. (1983). Interactionism, idiographics,
and the social psychological invasion of personality. Journal of Personality. 51, 286-307.
Kenrick, D. T., & Stringfield, D. O. (1980). Personality traits and the
eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. Psychological
Review, 87, 88-104.
Kline, P., & Barrett, P. (1983). The factors in personality questionnaires
among normal subjects. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy. 5. 141-202.
Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality,
American Psychologist, 16, 276-289.
Lorr, M., & Manning, T. T. (1978). Higher-order personality factors of
thelSI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13, 3-7.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953).
The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCrae, R. R. (1982). Consensual validation of personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 293-303.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983a). Joint factors in self-reports
and ratings: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience.
Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 245-255.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983b). Social desirability scales:
More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985a). Openness to experience. In
R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality: Theory,
measurement, and interpersonal dynamics (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT:
JA1 Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T, Jr. (1985b). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy": Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural
language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. X, Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.
McGowan, J., & Gormly, J. (1976). Validation of personality traits: A
multicriteria approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34,191-795.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1982). Beyond deja vu in the search for
cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 89, 730-755.
Morris, W. (Ed.). (1976). The American Heritage dictionary of the English language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality
attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality
rulings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Norman, W. T. (1969). "To see oursels as ithers see us!": Relations
among self-perceptions, peer-perceptions, and expected peer perceptions of personality attributes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 4.
417-443.
Norman, W. T, & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681 -691.
Peabody, D. (1984). Personality dimensions through trait inferences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46, 384-403.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & McClearn, G. E. (1980). Behavior genetics: A primer. San Francisco: Freeman.
Revelle, W., Humphreys, M. S., Simon, L., & Gilliland, K. (1980). The
interactive effect of personality, time of day, and caffeine: A test of the
arousal model. Journalof Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 131.
Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18-38.
Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C., Andres, R., Arenberg, D., Costa. P. T.,
Jr.,Lakatta, E. G., & Tobin, J. D. (1984). Normal human aging: The
Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (NIH Publication No. 842450). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Small, S. A., Zeldin, R. S., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1983). In search
of personality traits: A multimethod analysis of naturally occurring
prosocial and dominance behavior. Journal of Personality, 51. 1-16.
Stark, L. (1978). Trust. In H. London & J. E. Exner, Jr. (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 561-599). New York: Wiley.
Teasdale, J. D., & Rachman, S. (Eds.). (1983). Cognitions and mood:
Clinical aspects and applications [Special issue]. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5, 1-88.
Tellegen, A. (in press). Structures of mood and personality and their
relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In
A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors
based on trait ratings. VSAFASD Technical Report (No. 61 -97).
Vestre, N. D. (1984). Irrational beliefs and self-reported depressed
mood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 239-241.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive
terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 395-412.
Wrobel, T. A., & Lachar, D. (1982). Validity of the Weiner subtle and
obvious scales for the MMPI: Another example of the importance of
inventory-item content. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50,469-470.
Received September 7, 1984
Revision received January 18, 1985 •